Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23674083›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2013

Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training.

A Sayasneh, L Wynants, J Preisler, J Kaijser, S Johnson, C Stalder, R Husicka, Y Abdallah, F Raslan, A Drought and 6 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound models for assessment of ovarian tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Benign descriptors and ADNEX in two-step strategy to estimate risk of malignancy in ovarian tumors: retrospective validation in IOTA5 multicenter cohort.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

A SayasnehDepartment of Cancer and Surgery, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0HS, UK. a.sayasneh@imperial.ac.uk
L Wynants
J Preisler
J Kaijser
S Johnson
C Stalder
R Husicka
Y Abdallah
F Raslan
A Drought
A A Smith
S Ghaem-Maghami
E Epstein
B Van Calster
D Timmerman
T Bourne

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorrect characterisation of ovarian tumours is critical to optimise patient care. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) logistic regression model (LR2), ultrasound Simple Rules (SR), the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) and subjective assessment (SA) for preoperative characterisation of adnexal masses, when ultrasonography is performed by examiners with different background training and experience.

methodsA 2-year prospective multicentre cross-sectional study. Thirty-five level II ultrasound examiners contributed in three UK hospitals. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed using a standardised approach. The final outcome was the surgical findings and histological diagnosis. To characterise the adnexal masses, the six-variable prediction model (LR2) with a cutoff of 0.1, the RMI with cutoff of 200, ten SR (five rules for malignancy and five rules for benignity) and SA were applied. The area under the curves (AUCs) for performance of LR2 and RMI were calculated. Diagnostic performance measures for all models assessed were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).

resultsNine-hundred and sixty-two women with adnexal masses underwent transvaginal ultrasonography, whereas 255 had surgery. Prevalence of malignancy was 29% (49 primary invasive epithelial ovarian cancers, 18 borderline ovarian tumours, and 7 metastatic tumours). The AUCs for LR2 and RMI for all masses were 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.97) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83-0.94), respectively. In premenopausal women, LR2-RMI difference was 0.09 (95% CI: 0.03-0.15) compared with -0.02 (95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04) in postmenopausal women. For all masses, the DORs for LR2, RMI, SR+SA (using SA when SR inapplicable), SR+MA (assuming malignancy when SR inapplicable), and SA were 62 (95% CI: 27-142), 43 (95% CI: 19-97), 109 (95% CI: 44-274), 66 (95% CI: 27-158), and 70 (95% CI: 30-163), respectively.

conclusionOverall, the test performance of IOTA prediction models and rules as well as the RMI was maintained in examiners with varying levels of training and experience.

Indexed as

Health Status IndicatorsModels, TheoreticalAdultCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesEducation, MedicalFemaleHumansInternationalityMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialObserver VariationOvarian NeoplasmsPrevalencePrognosis

Identifiers

PMID23674083
PMCPMC3694231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.